The story has been told of the conspiracies at court and the repeated
checks suffered by the great lords in their attempts against Cardinal
Richelieu. With the exception of Languedoc, under the influence of its
governor the Duke of Montmorency, the provinces took no part in these
enterprises; their opposition was of another sort; and it is amongst the
parliaments chiefly that we must look for it.

"The king's cabinet and his bed-time business (petit coucher) cause me
more embarrassment than the whole of Europe causes me," said the cardinal
in the days of the great storms at court; he would often have had less
trouble in managing the parliaments and the Parliament of Paris in
particular, if the latter had not felt itself supported by a party at
court. For a long time past a pretension had been put forward by that
great body to give the king advice, and to replace towards him the
vanished states-general. "We hold the place in council of the princes
and barons, who from time immemorial were near the person of the kings,"
was the language used, in 1615, in the representations of the Parliament,
which had dared, without the royal order, to summon the princes, dukes,
peers, and officers of the crown to deliberate upon what was to be done
for the service of the king, the good of the state, and the relief of the
people.

This pretension on the part of the parliaments was what Cardinal
Richelieu was continually fighting against. He would not allow the
intervention of the magistrates in the government of the state. When he
took the power into his hands, nine parliaments sat in France—Paris,
Toulouse, Grenoble, Bordeaux, Dijon, Rouen, Aix, Rennes, and Pau: he
created but one, that of Metz, in 1633, to severe in a definitive manner
the bonds which still attached the three bishoprics to the Germanic
empire. Trials at that time were carried in the last resort to Spires.

Throughout the history of France we find the Parliament of Paris bolder
and more enterprising than all the rest: and it did not belie its
character in the very teeth of Richelieu. When, after Dupes' Day was
over, Louis XIII. declared all the companions of his brother's escape
guilty of high treason, the Parliament of Dijon, to which the decree was
presented by the king himself, enregistered it without making any
difficulty. All the other parliaments followed the example; that of
Paris alone resisted, and its decision on the 25th of April contained a
bitter censure upon the cardinal's administration. On the 12th of May,
the decision of that Parliament was quashed by a decree of the royal
council, and all its members were summoned to the Louvre; on their knees
they had to hear the severe reprimand delivered by Chateauneuf, keeper of
the seals; and one president and three counsellors were at the same time
dismissed. When the Parliament, still indomitable, would have had those
magistrates sit in defiance of the royal order, they were not to be found
in their houses; the soldiery had carried them off.

The trial of Marshal Marillac, before a commission, twice modified during
the course of proceedings, of the Parliament of Dijon, was the occasion
of a fresh reclamation on the part of the Parliament of Paris; and the
king's ill-humor against the magistrates burst forth on the occasion of a
commission constituted at the Arsenal to take cognizance of the crime of
coining. The Parliament made some formal objections the king, who was at
that time at Metz with his troops, summoned President Seguier and several
counsellors. He quashed the decree of the Parliament. "You are only
constituted," said he, "to judge between Master Peter and Master John
(between John Doe and Richard Roe); if you go on as at present, I will
pare your nails so close that you'll be sorry for it." Five counsellors
were interdicted, and had great trouble in obtaining authority to sit
again. So many and such frequent squabbles, whether about points of
jurisdiction or about the registration of edicts respecting finances,
which the Parliament claimed to have the right of looking into, caused
between the king, inspired by his minister, and the Parliament of Paris
an irritation which reached its height during the trial of the Duke of
La Valette, third son of the Duke of Epernon, accused, not without
grounds, of having caused the failure of the siege of Fontarabia from
jealousy towards the Prince of Conde. The affair was called on before
a commission composed of dukes and peers, some councillors of state and
some members of the Parliament, which demanded that the duke should be
removed to its jurisdiction. "I will not have it," answered the king;
"you are always making difficulties; it seems as if you wanted to keep me
in leading-strings; but I am master, and shall know how to make myself
obeyed: It is a gross error to suppose that I have not a right to bring
to judgment whom I think proper and where I please." The king himself
asked the judges for their opinion. [Isambert, Recueil des anciennes
Lois Francaises, t. xvi.] "Sir," replied Counsellor Pinon, dean of the
grand chamber, "for fifty years I have been in the Parliament, and I
never saw anything of this sort; M. de La Valette had the honor of
wedding a natural sister of your Majesty, and he is, besides, a peer
of France; I implore you to remove him to the jurisdiction of the
Parliament." "Your opinion!" said the king, curtly. "I am of opinion
that the Duke of La Valette be removed to be tried before the
Parliament." "I will not have that; it is no opinion." "Sir, removal is
a legitimate opinion." "Your opinion on the case!" rejoined the king,
who was beginning to be angry; "if not, I know what I must do."
President Bellievre was even bolder. "It is a strange thing," said he to
Louis XIII.'s face, "to see a king giving his vote at the criminal trial
of one of his subjects; hitherto kings have reserved to themselves the
rights of grace, and have removed to their officers' province the
sentencing of culprits. Could your Majesty bear to see in the dock a
nobleman, who might leave your presence only for the scaffold? It is
incompatible with kingly majesty." "Your opinion on the case!" bade the
king. "Sir, I have no other opinion." The Duke of La Valette had taken
refuge in England: he was condemned and executed in effigy. The
attorney-general, Matthew Mold, "did not consider it his business to
carry out an execution of that sort: "and recourse was obliged to be had
to the lieutenant-governor of convicts at the Chatelet of Paris.

The cup had overflowed, and the cardinal resolved to put an end to an
opposition which was the more irritating inasmuch as it was sometimes
legitimate. A notification of the king's, published in 1641, prohibited
the Parliament from any interference in affairs of state and
administration. The whole of Richelieu's home-policy is summed up in the
preamble to that instrument, a formal declaration of absolute power
concentrated in the hands of the king. "It seemeth that, the institution
of monarchies having its foundation in the government of a single one,
that rank is as it were the soul which animates them and inspires them
with as much force and vigor as they can have short of perfection. But
as this absolute authority raises states to the highest pinnacle of their
glory, so, when it happens to be enfeebled, they are observed, in a short
time, to fall from their high estate. There is no need to go out of
France to find instances of truth. . . . The fatal disorders and
divisions of the League, which ought to be buried in eternal oblivion,
owed their origin and growth to disregard of the kingly authority Henry
the Great, in whom God had put the most excellent virtues of a great
prince, on succeeding to the crown of Henry III., restored by his valor
the kingly authority which had been as it were cast down and trampled
under foot. France recovered her pristine vigor, and let all Europe see
that power concentrated in the person of the sovereign is the source of
the glory and greatness of monarchies, and the foundation upon which
their preservation rests. . . . We, then, have thought it necessary
to regulate the administration of justice, and to make known to our
parliaments what is the legitimate usage of the authority which the
kings, our predecessors, and we have deposited with them, in order that a
thing which was established for the good of the people may not produce
contrary effects, as would happen if the officers, instead of contenting
themselves with that power which makes them judges in matters of life and
death and touching the fortunes of our subjects, would fain meddle in the
government of the state which appertains to the prince only."

The cardinal had gained the victory. Parliament bowed the head; its
attempts at independence during the Fronde were but a flash, and the yoke
of Louis XIV. became the more heavy for it. The pretensions of the
magistrates were often foundationless, the restless and meddlesome
character of their assemblies did harm to their remonstrances; but for a
long while they maintained, in the teeth of more and more absolute kingly
power, the country's rights in the government, and they had perceived the
dangers of that sovereign monarchy which certainly sometimes raises
states to the highest pinnacle of their glory, but only to let them sink
before long to a condition of the most grievous abasement.

Though always first in the breach, the Parliament of Paris was not alone
in its opposition to the cardinal. The Parliament of Dijon protested
against the sentence of Marshal Marillac, and refused, to its shame, to
bear its share of the expenses for the defence of Burgundy against the
Duke of Lorraine, in 1636, a refusal which cost it the suspension of its
premier president.

The Parliament of Brittany, in defence of its jurisdictional privileges,
refused to enregister the decree which had for object the foundation of a
company trading with the Indies, "for the general trade between the West
and the East," a grand idea of Richelieu's, the seat of which was to be
in the roads of Morbihan; the company, already formed, was disheartened,
thanks to the delays caused by the Parliament, and the enterprise failed.
The Parliament of Grenoble, fearing a dearth of corn in Dauphiny, quashed
the treaties of supply for the army of Italy, at the time of the second
expedition to Mantua; it went so far as to have the dealers' granaries
thrown open, and the superintendent of finance, D'Emery, was obliged to
come to terms with the deputies of Dauphiny, "in order that they of the
Parliament of Grenoble, who said they had no interests but those of the
province, might have no reason to prevent for the future the transport of
corn," says Richelieu himself in his Memoires.

The Parliament of Rouen had always passed for one of the most
recalcitrant. The province of Normandy was rich, and, consequently,
overwhelmed with imposts; and several times the Parliament refused to
enregister financial edicts which still further aggravated the distress
of the people. In 1637 the king threatened to go in person to Rouen and
bring the Parliament to submission, whereat it took fright and
enregistered decrees for twenty-two millions. It was, no doubt, this
augmentation of imposts that brought about the revolt of the Nu-pieds
(Barefoots) in 1639. Before now, in 1624 and in 1637, in Perigord and
Rouergue, two popular risings of the same sort, under the name of
Croquants (Paupers), had disquieted the authorities, and the governor of
the province had found some trouble in putting them down. The Nu-pieds
were more numerous and more violent still; from Rouen to Avranches all
the country was a-blaze. At Coutances and at Vire, several monopoliers
and gabeleurs, as the fiscal officers were called, were massacred; a
great number of houses were burned, and most of the receiving-offices
were pulled down or pillaged. Everywhere the army of suffering (armee
de souffrance), the name given by the revolters to themselves, made,
appeal to violent passions; popular rhymes were circulated from hand to
hand, in the name of General Nu-pieds (Barefoot), an imaginary
personage whom nobody ever saw. Some of these verses are fair enough.

TO NORMANDY.
"Dear land of mine, thou canst no more
What boots it to have served so well?
For see! thy faithful service bore
This bitter fruit—the cursed gabelle.
Is that the guerdon earned by those
Who succored France against her foes,
Who saved her kings, upheld her crown,
And raised the lilies trodden down,
In spite of all the foe could do,
In spite of Spain and England too?
"Recall thy generous blood, and show
That all posterity may know—
Duke William's breed still lives at need:
Show that thou hast a heavier hand
Than erst came forth from Northern land;
A hand so strong, a heart so high,
These tyrants all shall beaten cry,
'From Normans and the Norman race
Deliver us, O God of grace!'"

The tumult was more violent at Rouen than anywhere else, and the
Parliament energetically resisted the mob. It had sent two counsellors
as a deputation to Paris to inform the king about the state of affairs.
"You may signify to the gentlemen of the Parliament of Rouen," said
Chancellor Seguier, in answer to the delegates, "that I thank them for
the trouble they have taken on this occasion; I will let the king know
how they have behaved in this affair. I beg them to go on as they have
begun. I know that the Parliament did very good service there."

In fact, several counsellors, on foot in the street and in the very midst
of the revolters, had, at the peril of their lives, defended Le Tellier
de Tourneville, receiver-general of gabels, and his officers, whilst the
whole Parliament, in their robes, with the premier president at their
head, perambulated Rouen, amidst the angry mob, repairing at once to the
points most threatened, insomuch that the presidents and counsellors were
"in great danger and fear for their skins." [Histoire du Parlement de
Normandy, by M. Floquet, t. iv.] It was this terror, born of tumults
and the sight of an infuriated populace, which, at a later period,
retarded the Parliament in dealing out justice, and brought down upon
it the wrath of the king and of the cardinal.

Meanwhile the insurrection was gaining ground, and the local authorities
were powerless to repress it. There was hesitation at the king's council
in choosing between Marshal Rantzau and M. de Gassion to command the
forces ordered to march into Normandy. "That country yields no wine,"
said the king "that will not do for Rantzau, or be good quarters for
him." And they sent Colonel Gession, not so heavy a drinker as Rantzau,
a good soldier and an inflexible character. First at Caen, then at
Avranches, where there was fighting to be done, at Coutances and at
Elbeuf, Gassion's soldiery everywhere left the country behind them in
subjection, in ruin, and in despair. They entered Rouen on the 31st of
December, 1639, and on the 2d of January, 1640, the chancellor himself
arrived to do justice on the rebels heaped up in the prisons, whom the
Parliament dared not bring up for judgment. "I come to Rouen," he said,
on entering the town, "not to deliberate, but to declare and execute the
matters on which my mind is made up." And he forbade all intervention on
the part of the archbishop, Francis de Harlay, who was disposed, in
accordance with his office of love as well as the parliamentary name he
bore, to implore pity for the culprits, and to excuse the backward
judges. The chancellor did not give himself the trouble to draw up
sentences. "The decree is at the tip of my staff," replied Picot, captain
of his guards, when he was asked to show his orders. The executions were
numerous in Higher and Lower Normandy, and the Parliament received the
wages of its tardiness. All the members of the body, even the most aged
and infirm, were obliged to leave Rouen. A commission of fifteen
councillors of the Parliament of Paris came to replace provisionally the
interdicted Parliament of Normandy; and, when the magistrates were
empowered at last to resume their sitting, it was only a six months'
term: that is, the Parliament henceforth found itself divided into two
fragments, perfect strangers one to the other, which were to sit
alternately for six months. "A veritable thunderbolt for that sovereign
court, for by the six months' term," says M. Floquet, "there was no
longer any Parliament, properly speaking, but two phantoms of Parliament,
making war on each other, whilst the government had the field open to
carve and cut without control."

"All obedience is now from fear," wrote Grotius to Oxenstiern, chancellor
of Sweden; "the idea is to exorcise and annihilate hatred by means of
terror." "This year," wrote an inhabitant of Rouen, "there have been no
New Year's presents [etrennes], no singing of 'the king's drinking-song
[le roi boit], in any house. Little children will be able to tell
tales of it when they have attained to man's estate; for never, these
fifty years past, so far as I can learn, has it been so." [Journal de
l'Abbe de la Rue.] The heaviest imposts weighed upon the whole
province, which thus expiated the crime of an insignificant portion of
its inhabitants. "The king shall not lose the value of this handkerchief
that I hold," said the superintendent Bullion, on arriving at Rouen. And
he kept his word: Rouen alone had to pay more than three millions. The
province and its Parliament were henceforth reduced to submission.

It was not only the Parliaments that resisted the efforts of Cardinal
Richelieu to concentrate all the power of the government in the hands of
the king. From the time that the sovereigns had given up convoking the
states-general, the states-provincial had alone preserved the right of
bringing to the foot of the throne the plaints and petitions of subjects.
Unhappily few provinces enjoyed this privilege; Languedoc, Brittany,
Burgundy, Provence, Dauphiny, and the countship of Pau alone were
states-districts, that is to say, allowed to tax themselves
independently and govern themselves to a certain extent. Normandy,
though an elections-district, and, as such, subject to the royal agents
in respect of finance, had states which continued to meet even in 1666.
The states-provincial were always convoked by the king, who fixed the
place and duration of assembly.

The composition of the states-provincial varied a great deal, according
to the districts. In Brittany all noblemen settled in the province had
the right of sitting, whilst the third estate were represented by only
forty deputies. In Languedoc, on the contrary, the nobility had but
twenty-three representatives, and the class of the third estate numbered
sixty-eight deputies. Hence, no doubt, the divergences of conduct to be
remarked in those two provinces between the Parliament and the
states-provincial. In Languedoc, even during Montmorency's insurrection,
the Parliament remained faithful to the king and submissive to the
cardinal, whilst the states declared in favor of the revolt: in Brittany,
the Parliament thwarted Richelieu's efforts in favor of trade, which had
been enthusiastically welcomed by the states.

In Languedoc as well as in Dauphiny the cardinal's energy was constantly
directed towards reducing the privileges which put the imposts, and,
consequently, the royal revenues, at the discretion of the states.
Montmorency's insurrection cost Languedoc a great portion of its
liberties, which had already been jeoparded, in 1629, on the occasion of
the Huguenots' rising; and those of Dauphiny were completely lost; the
states were suppressed in 1628.

The states of Burgundy ordinarily assembled every three years, but they
were accustomed, on separating, to appoint "a chamber of states-general,"
whereat the nobility, clergy, and third estate were represented, and
which was charged to watch over the interests of the province in the
interval between the sessions. When, in 1629, Richelieu proposed to
create, as in Languedoc, a body of "elect" to arrange with the fiscal
agents for the rating of imposts without the concurrence of the states,
the assembly proclaimed that "it was all over with the liberties of the
province if the edict passed," and, in the chamber of the nobility, two
gentlemen were observed to draw their swords. But, spite of the
disturbance which took place at Dijon, in 1630, on occasion of an impost
on wines, and which was called, from the title of a popular ditty, la
Sedition de Lanturlu, the province preserved its liberties, and remained
a states-district.

It was the same subject that excited in Provence the revolt of the
Cascaveous, or bell-bearers. Whenever there was any question of
elections or "elect," the conspirators sounded their bells as a rallying
signal, and so numerous was the body of adherents that the bells were
heard tinkling everywhere. The Prince of Conde was obliged to march
against the revolters, and the states assembled at Tarascon found
themselves forced to vote a subsidy of one million five hundred thousand
livres. At this cost the privileges of Provence were respected.

The states of Brittany, on the contrary, lent the cardinal faithful
support, when he repaired thither with the king, in 1626, at the time of
the conspiracy of Chalais; the Duke of Vendome, governor of Brittany, had
just been arrested; the states requested the king "never to give them a
governor issue of the old dukes, and to destroy the fortifications of the
towns and castles which were of no use for the defence of the country."
The petty noblemen, a majority in the states, thus delivered over the
province to the kingly power, from jealousy of the great lords. The
ordinance, dated from Nantes on the 31st of July, 1626, rendered the
measure general throughout France. The battlements of the castles fell
beneath the axe of the demolishers, and the masses of the district
welcomed enthusiastically the downfall of those old reminiscences of
feudal oppression.

As a sequel to the systematic humiliation of the great lords, even when
provincial governors, and to the gradual enfeeblement of provincial
institutions, Richelieu had to create in all parts of France, still so
diverse in organization as well as in manners, representatives of the
kingly power, of too modest and feeble a type to do without him, but
capable of applying his measures and making his wishes respected. Before
now the kings of France had several times over perceived the necessity of
keeping up a supervision over the conduct of their officers in the
provinces. The inquisitors (enquesteurs) of St. Louis, the ridings of
the revising-masters (chevauehees des maitres des requetes), the
departmental commissioners (commissaires departis) of Charles IX., were
so many temporary and travelling inspectors, whose duty it was to inform
the king of the state of affairs throughout the kingdom. Richelieu
substituted for these shifting commissions a fixed and regular
institution, and in 1637 he established in all the provinces overseers of
justice, police, and finance, who were chosen for the most part from
amongst the burgesses, and who before long concentrated in their hands
the whole administration, and maintained the struggle of the kingly power
against the governors, the sovereign courts, and the states-provincial.

At the time when the overseers of provinces were instituted, the battle
of pure monarchy was gained; Richelieu had no further need of allies, he
wanted mere subjects; but at the beginning of his ministry he had felt
the need of throwing himself sometimes for support on the nation, and
this great foe of the states-general had twice convoked the Assembly of
Notables. The first took place at Fontainebleau, in 1625-6. The
cardinal was at that time at loggerheads with the court of Rome: "If the
Most Christian King," said he, "is bound to watch over the interests of
the Catholic church, he has first of all to maintain his own reputation
in the world. What use would it be for a state to have power, riches,
and popular government, if it had not character enough to bring other
people to form alliance with it?" These few words summed up the great
minister's foreign policy, to protect the Catholic church whilst keeping
up Protestant alliances. The Notables understood the wisdom of this
conduct, and Richelieu received their adhesion. It was just the same the
following year, the day after the conspiracy of Chalais; the cardinal
convoked the Assembly of Notables. "We do protest before the living
God," said the letters of convocation, "that we have no other aim and
intention but His honor and the welfare of our subjects; that is why we
do conjure in His name those whom we convoke, and do most expressly
command them, without fear or desire of displeasing or pleasing any, to
give us, in all frankness and sincerity, the counsels they shall judge on
their consciences to be the most salutary and convenient for the welfare
of the commonwealth." The assembly so solemnly convoked opened its
sittings at the palace of the Tuileries on the 2d of December, 1626. The
state of the finances was what chiefly occupied those present; and the
cardinal himself pointed out the general principles of the reform he
calculated upon establishing. "It is impossible," he said, "to meddle
with the expenses necessary for the preservation of the state; it were a
crime to think of such a thing. The retrenchment, therefore, must be in
the case of useless expenses. The most stringent rules are and appear to
be, even to the most ill-regulated minds, comparatively mild, when they
have, in deed as well as in appearance, no object but the public good and
the safety of the state. To restore the state to its pristine splendor,
we need not many ordinances, but a great deal of practical performance."

The performance appertained to Richelieu, and he readily dispensed with
many ordinances. The Assembly was favorable to his measures; but amongst
those that it rejected was the proposal to substitute loss of offices and
confiscation for the penalty of death in matters of rebellion and
conspiracy. "Better a moderate but certain penalty," said the cardinal,
"than a punishment too severe to be always inflicted." It was the
notables who preserved in the hands of the inflexible minister the
terrible weapon of which he availed himself so often. The Assembly
separated on the 24th of February, 1627, the last that was convoked
before the revolution of 1789. It was in answer to its demands, as well
as to those of the states of 1614, that the keeper of the seals, Michael
Marillac, drew up, in 1629, the important administrative ordinance which
has preserved from its author's name the title of Code Michau.

The cardinal had propounded to the Notables a question which he had
greatly at heart—the foundation of a navy. Already, when disposing,
some weeks previously, of the government of Brittany, which had been
taken away from the Duke of Vendome, he had separated from the office
that of admiral of Brittany; already he was in a position to purchase
from M. de Montmorency his office of grand admiral of France, so as to
suppress it and substitute for it that of grand master of navigation,
which was personally conferred upon Richelieu by an edict enregistered on
the 18th of March, 1627.

"Of the power which it has seemed agreeable to his Majesty that I should
hold," he wrote on the 20th of January, 1627, "I can say with truth, that
it is so moderate that it could not be more so to be an appreciable
service, seeing that I have desired no wage or salary so as not to be a
charge to the state, and I can add without vanity that the proposal to
take no wage came from me, and that his Majesty made a difficulty about
letting it be so."

The Notables had thanked the king, for the intention he had "of being
pleased to give the kingdom the treasures of the sea which nature had so
liberally proffered it, for without [keeping] the sea one cannot profit
by the sea nor maintain war." Harbors repaired and fortified, arsenals
established at various points on the coast, organization of marine
regiments, foundation of pilot-schools, in fact, the creation of a
powerful marine which, in 1642, numbered sixty-three vessels and
twenty-two galleys, that left the roads of Barcelona after the
rejoicings for the capture of Perpignan and arrived the same evening at
Toulon—such were the fruits of Richelieu's administration of naval
affairs. "Instead," said the bailiff of Forbin, "of having a handful of
rebels forcing us, as of late, to compose our naval forces of foreigners
and implore succor from Spain, England, Malta, and Holland, we are at
present in a condition to do as much for them if they continue in
alliance with us, or to beat them when they fall off from us."

So much progress on every point, so many efforts in all directions,
eighty-five vessels afloat, a hundred regiments of infantry, and three
hundred troops of cavalry, almost constantly on a war footing, naturally
entailed enormous expenses and terrible burdens on the people. It was
Richelieu's great fault to be more concerned about his object than
scrupulous as to the means he employed for arriving at it. His
principles were as harsh as his conduct. "Reason does not admit of
exempting the people from all burdens," said he, "because in such case,
on losing the mark of their subjection, they would also lose remembrance
of their condition, and, if they were free from tribute, would think that
they were from obedience also." Cruel words those, and singularly
destitute of regard for Christian charity and human dignity, beside
which, however, must be placed these: "If the subsidies imposed on the
people were not to be kept within moderate bounds, even when they were
needed for the service of the country, they would not cease to be
unjust." The strong common sense of this great mind did not allow him to
depart for long from a certain hard equity. Posterity has preserved the
memory of his equity less than of his hardness: men want sympathy more
than justice.